- Called: 2001
Property lies at the centre of Guy’s practice. He is a specialist property barrister whose practice has become focused upon three areas; Trusts of Land, Landlord and Tenant and Contentious Probate. He is widely regarded for providing astute, commercially minded advice and for providing excellent client care. He is instructed by a large variety of clients ranging from the Government of Sri Lanka to private landlords.
Whilst Guy Holland has considerable experience in dealing with all areas of property law his core areas of practice and expertise are:
Trusts of Land
Guy’s experience is especially focused upon disputes concerning the creation, ownership, transfer or protection of property rights or rights over property following the breakdown in relationships between cohabitees, family members and those involved in joint enterprise.
Much of Guy’s practice is made of up work relating to TLATA, beneficial and resulting trusts, proprietary estoppel, undue influence and real estate fraud.
Contentious Probate including Inheritance Act claims
Guy has the skills and experience necessary to deal with cases concerned with challenges to the validity of a will, undue influence as well as disputes relating to the proper administration of an estate. Guy also often acts in claims made under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.
Landlord and Tenant
Guy has a wealth of experience in this area including business tenancy renewal, dilapidations/disrepair, service charge disputes, adverse possession, Housing, including Anti Social Behaviour and Mobile Home cases. Guy appears regularly before the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal, the Lands Tribunal and Residential Property Tribunal.
Guy is a member of the Property Bar Association and SHLA and is qualified to accept instructions under the Public Access Scheme.
University of Newcastle Upon Tyne LLB Law.
McCabe v McCabe  EWHC 1591 (Ch)
In a 170 page judgment, the testatrix’s decision to disinherit one of her sons was found not to be based upon false beliefs or confabulations. Although she did suffer with Alzheimer’s disease when the will was executed she had the requisite capacity and understood the contents of the will and its effect. The will had been duly executed despite the witness to the signing claiming that he had in fact not been a witness to the signing by the tetatrix.
Long v Value Properties  EWHC 2981 (Ch)
The applicable sanction for failure to serve the further information identified in CPR PD 47 para.32.5, relating to conditional fee agreements, on time in detailed assessment proceedings was imposed by CPR r.44.3B(1)(c), which provided for a graduated sanction specifically referable to the period of default. The sanction under the CPR r.44.3B(1)(d), which rendered the whole success fee irrecoverable, did not apply as there had not been a complete failure to serve the required information in the course of the assessment process.
Stokes v Mardner  EWHC 1179 (QB) All ER (D) 131
Sham agreements, Exemply Damages for Trespass to Land.
Eastwood v Eastwood  EWHC 953 (ch)
Constructive Trust / Partnership Assets.
A probate dispute relating to a number of pieces of land and dealing with the issue as to whether or not such land was held on trust for the benficiaries as tenants in common or joint tenants.
Prebble v Costa (2010) EWCA Civ 717 CA (Civ Div)
The determination of an oral contract where there was no contemporaneous documentation and the unusual circumstances of the case rendered inherent probabilities elusive.
Ten Sixty Six Housing Ltd v Ward, 2008 Lag
Suitability of alternative accommodation Sch 2 HA 1988
Guy is a member of the Chancery Bar Association and Property Bar Association.